There are a number of challenges facing users with disabilities that prevent them from fully experiencing the power of the personal computer (PC) and other devices. One significant contributor is the requirement that users adapt their working style, modes of communication, and thought processes to suit the device or software they are using. The aging population faces challenges similar to those faced by users with disabilities, such as difficulty seeing the display, hearing the audio, using the mouse, and configuring their system. Also, they often fail to discover features designed to help them. Aging users rarely identify themselves as being disabled. Therefore, it is important that system capabilities are not marked solely as features for users with disabilities.
Current design issues include: assumptions regarding input (e.g., the mouse and keyboard are the only devices widely supported); assumptions regarding output (e.g., many users cannot use “standard” forms of output, such as monitor and speakers); and cumbersome user interfaces (UIs) (e.g., graphical user interfaces (GUIs) require a user to wade through multiple levels of the UI to accomplish a single task, and the keyboard navigation model is often highly complex and not easily discovered).
Current general usability issues include: user preferences being ignored (e.g., users are prevented from adjusting their systems to meet their needs because system colors, fonts, sizes, and timing are not consistently respected); local settings (e.g., user settings are stored locally and are therefore not available on other devices, thereby placing the burden of configuration on the user); setup and configuration (e.g., configuring devices is too difficult for many users, especially seniors and users with disabilities); and hardware that is unaware (e.g., users must manually adjust their systems to compensate for changes in their surroundings such as lighting and background noise).
Current issues regarding programmatic access to information include: incomplete UI information (e.g., only a small subset of UI information can be retrieved by assistive technology (AT) products, which rely on hooks, application-specific APIs, and unsupported techniques to collect necessary information); poor magnification support (e.g., current techniques produce low-quality images); loss of information (e.g., information conveyed by layout alone, such as visual grouping or alignment of controls, can not be discovered programmatically and conveyed in another form such as Braille or speech); and inadequate automation support (e.g., user input cannot be simulated by alt input devices).
While users with disabilities as well as the aging population are likely to have the most extreme demands, there are many other users that would benefit from improvements in accessibility options because of the various factors that can produce temporary or situational disabilities. For example, the use of a display in bright sunlight is comparable to complete or partial blindness, working in an environment with high levels of background noise is comparable to being deaf, the use of a device by a user whose hands are injured or occupied is comparable to the user having a mobility impairment, and eye strain (e.g., a need for magnification and/or change in contrast) is comparable to low vision. Additionally, Repetitive Stress Injury (RSI) is comparable to a mobility impairment.
Thus, there still exists a need for improving user accessibility options technology.